The Baseball Thread 2007

[Tim McG]

as much as i loathe contributing to the non-stop AL east fest, papelbon looks fucking crazy just before he pitches. that guy is awesome. I do wonder though if he will flame out gagne-style or go mental brad lidge style. if not, hes gonna be the real deal.

with that said, the season has been pretty cool thus far. I'm particularly happy about the development of adrian gonzalez, and barry bonds homering like crazy (despite how everyone hates him for using steroids, he really is an exciting player to watch. I had the good fortune of seeing Greg Maddux shut him down at Petco a few weeks back)

I think back in Barry's non-steroid days he was exciting to watch....now he bats a few times a game a few days a week, provides very little excitement on the base paths or in field....not really that exciting (to me).

m~

Non-steroids day...?

I wasn't aware there was any proof to that effect. Besides, he's 42 years old and with bad knees. Anybody would slow done at that point.

For the record, Bonds was MVP seven times before being accused.

My point is that he is (currently) not exciting to watch, not that he is 42 with bad knees....a blind man can see that...(no offense to any of you that are blind). I would agree he was exciting to watch at one time....that time is no longer (to me). There are too many good, young (and old) players playing today to get excitied watching Barry. You will have as many people (or more) dissapointed when he breaks the record than will give a sh*t.

m~

I disagree.

The sports media jackals are only in search of some dirt on Bonds in order to sell newsprint and as a get back for the fact he snubs their asses. Sure he's old, but so was Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth.

If you don't care when he beats Hank Aaron's record, then you have bought into the big media lie.

The media has an ax to grind here. Besides, how many times have we heard that some athlete who makes a record has to be juiced or on some sort of performance enhancing drug? Once, twice....a thousand times?

If you're good, your'e on drugs.

If you quit becuase of the jackals in the media harassed you, you're on drugs.

If you deny it, you're on drugs.

If somebody you know used drugs, you're on drugs, too.

If your ex-girlfriend rats on you, you're on drugs.

This is is total media bullshit.

SHOW me the proof. I want to see hard evidence that what the media jackals are saying is fact.

HGH's or steroids or "the clear" or whatever the hell he is accused of taking will not make you SEE a baseball any better. You have to have the Gift.

I'm telling you Barry Bonds is that good.

Edited April 26, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Quincy]

HGH's or steroids or "the clear" or whatever the hell he is accused of taking will not make you SEE a baseball any better.

Actually one or the other does help you see better (I've forgotten which).

You have to have the Gift.

And he does. Based on what he was doing by '98 or '00 so I was ready to place him in LF on my All-Time team. Yes, because of his speed & defense even ahead of Ted Williams. (Though I wouldn't argue someone picking Williams instead, or Rickey Henderson.) And he didn't need to hit 700 homers to be in the argument for greatest player ever. Had he stayed clean he would have gotten a good honest 600-something. But it's pretty damn obvious he didn't stay clean. And that's what muddies it all for those of us who aren't Giant fans in denial.

I'm telling you Barry Bonds is that good.

He's great but he cheated, and it's like an A student cheating - it seems so unnecessary. He was already great, but it wasn't enough. He was, or is so damn petty he couldn't handle the other cheaters (Sosa & McGwire) getting more attention. And not all of those who have put up great numbers are suspects though. I can't recall any rumors about Ken Griffey Jr. or Manny doing 'roids, just to name 2 future hall of famers.

[J Larsen]

I don't think he is a very exciting player whether he cheated or not. He has a selfish, non-team oriented approach to playing the game. Every night it's like there are two events on the field: the Giants game and the Barry Bonds show. I've been sick of it for a long time.

As to whether he cheated - dude, you have to have your head burried way in the sand to even be stuck on the question.

[Dan Gould]

The sports media jackals are only in search of some dirt on Bonds in order to sell newsprint and as a get back for the fact he snubs their asses. Sure he's old, but so was Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth.

If you don't care when he beats Hank Aaron's record, then you have bought into the big media lie.

The media has an ax to grind here. Besides, how many times have we heard that some athlete who makes a record has to be juiced or on some sort of performance enhancing drug? Once, twice....a thousand times?

If you're good, your'e on drugs.

If you quit becuase of the jackals in the media harassed you, you're on drugs.

If you deny it, you're on drugs.

If somebody you know used drugs, you're on drugs, too.

If your ex-girlfriend rats on you, you're on drugs.

This is is total media bullshit.

The simple problem with this is that these statements ONLY APPLY to Bonds. The claim that the "media" attacks because it thinks star athletes are on drugs is simply ludicrous. Has David Ortiz been attacked?

SHOW me the proof. I want to see hard evidence that what the media jackals are saying is fact.

HGH's or steroids or "the clear" or whatever the hell he is accused of taking will not make you SEE a baseball any better. You have to have the Gift.

I'll make you a deal:

You send me your address, I will send you, at my cost, a copy of "Game of Shadows".

You promise to read it, cover to cover.

You then come back to this thread and either post, in detail, an argument that refutes the conclusion that Bonds used a wide variety of performance enhancing drugs, or else you shut up about the "gift" and denying what everyone with a brain now knows.

Deal? PM me if you have the guts to read the truth about your pathetic hero.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Dan Gould

[donald byrd 4 EVA]

peavy vs. webb was awesome last night, as expected. (i told you) too bad hoffman blew the save.

strike-out city

[Big Al]

19 strikeouts. NINETEEN FREAKIN' STRIKEOUTS!!!! Can this season get any worse?

[donald byrd 4 EVA]

peavy is gonna win the cy young this year. i can feel it...

[BERIGAN]

You simply cannot get enough Red Sox talk, can one?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04...fa_fact_mcgrath

[zen archer]

There was some speculation that Manny was wearing earplugs and listening to music while playing left field.

i guess there is a type of sunglasses that has a built in radio ??..i dunno ....i just remember that was the buzz

on weei here in Boston a few years back

[zen archer]

Beckett won his Fifth game in April joining only Babe Ruth and Pedro as Red Sox who have done that.

[BERIGAN]

Man, I feel sorry for Mark Prior! Losing another season. Did Dusty Baker ruin Woods and Prior with too much work too soon?

Found this on a braves blog(Posted by a guy named Krath) about pitchers a scant 30+ years ago...amazing! The stuff in italics is from the paper, afterwards, is his opinions......

I got these excerpts from the Cincy paper referring to an earlier time. Please read;

”Boston starter Luis Tiant pitched 14 1/3 innings and took the loss. Nolan Ryan of the Angels lasted 13 innings, struck out 19, walked 10 and — hold onto your helmets — threw 235 pitches

The Los Angeles Times’ game account acknowledged “Tiant and Ryan dueled tenaciously,” yet there was no mention of Ryan’s pitch count in the game story or the following-day notes. Ryan knows he threw 235 only because Tom Morgan, the Angel pitching coach, kept track on a hand-held clicker. On Ryan , “It obviously ruined his arm because he had to retire 19 years later,” said Bill James, a renowned chronicler of baseball facts and figures. Ryan took his regularly scheduled start four days later and won, pitched again five days later and won again, started five days after that and tossed a one-hit shutout against Texas. Ryan says, in 1974, he averaged between 160 and 180 pitches per outing.”

If you look up some of the biggest innings eaters in the last 30 years you’re going to find power pitchers like Steve Carlton and Roger Clemens as well as Ryan. You’re also going to find the soft tossers like Niekro and Charlie Hough. Some of the guys were throwing 300 or more innings! You don’t do that coming out in the 7th inning of games. One more thing. Many of these guys were strikeout pitchers so they WERE throwing a lot of pitches in those 300 or so innings. Ryan’s arm didn’t fall off. Neither did Carlton’s. I read an account where Johnny Sain was doing a pitch count on Glavine in his early years with the Braves where he threw between 150 and 160 pitches in a game. Chuck Tanner told him to roll the clicker back to 120 so that upper management wouldn’t freak out if they questioned the count. Sure enough Sain was questioned about it and showed the clicker at 120. This story was attributed to Tanner.

Are today’s pitchers geared for pitch counts? Absolutely. Do I feel that when a guy has thrown 100 pitches and is still dealing he cares about his pitch count? I don’t think so.

Athletes today are bigger, stronger and smarter when it comes to conditioning…. or at least that’s the common conclusion. The pitching rubber is still 60 ft 6 inches away from the plate. The ball weighs the same as it did 30 years ago. So whats up with these new super atheletes not being able to throw more than 100 pitches?

[sheldonm]

You simply cannot get enough Red Sox talk, can one?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04...fa_fact_mcgrath

I certainly have had enough....already!

[sheldonm]

Man, I feel sorry for Mark Prior! Losing another season. Did Dusty Baker ruin Woods and Prior with too much work too soon?

Found this on a braves blog(Posted by a guy named Krath) about pitchers a scant 30+ years ago...amazing! The stuff in italics is from the paper, afterwards, is his opinions......

I got these excerpts from the Cincy paper referring to an earlier time. Please read;

”Boston starter Luis Tiant pitched 14 1/3 innings and took the loss. Nolan Ryan of the Angels lasted 13 innings, struck out 19, walked 10 and — hold onto your helmets — threw 235 pitches

The Los Angeles Times’ game account acknowledged “Tiant and Ryan dueled tenaciously,” yet there was no mention of Ryan’s pitch count in the game story or the following-day notes. Ryan knows he threw 235 only because Tom Morgan, the Angel pitching coach, kept track on a hand-held clicker. On Ryan , “It obviously ruined his arm because he had to retire 19 years later,” said Bill James, a renowned chronicler of baseball facts and figures. Ryan took his regularly scheduled start four days later and won, pitched again five days later and won again, started five days after that and tossed a one-hit shutout against Texas. Ryan says, in 1974, he averaged between 160 and 180 pitches per outing.”

If you look up some of the biggest innings eaters in the last 30 years you’re going to find power pitchers like Steve Carlton and Roger Clemens as well as Ryan. You’re also going to find the soft tossers like Niekro and Charlie Hough. Some of the guys were throwing 300 or more innings! You don’t do that coming out in the 7th inning of games. One more thing. Many of these guys were strikeout pitchers so they WERE throwing a lot of pitches in those 300 or so innings. Ryan’s arm didn’t fall off. Neither did Carlton’s. I read an account where Johnny Sain was doing a pitch count on Glavine in his early years with the Braves where he threw between 150 and 160 pitches in a game. Chuck Tanner told him to roll the clicker back to 120 so that upper management wouldn’t freak out if they questioned the count. Sure enough Sain was questioned about it and showed the clicker at 120. This story was attributed to Tanner.

Are today’s pitchers geared for pitch counts? Absolutely. Do I feel that when a guy has thrown 100 pitches and is still dealing he cares about his pitch count? I don’t think so.

Athletes today are bigger, stronger and smarter when it comes to conditioning…. or at least that’s the common conclusion. The pitching rubber is still 60 ft 6 inches away from the plate. The ball weighs the same as it did 30 years ago. So whats up with these new super atheletes not being able to throw more than 100 pitches?

...pussies!

[zen archer]

Boy do the yankees look bad 7 straight losses.........Dice K was allright except for that one inning.

[ejp626]

Athletes today are bigger, stronger and smarter when it comes to conditioning…. or at least that’s the common conclusion. The pitching rubber is still 60 ft 6 inches away from the plate. The ball weighs the same as it did 30 years ago. So whats up with these new super atheletes not being able to throw more than 100 pitches?

Of course. someone then jumped in and said it is precisely because too many of these pitchers lift weights too much that they can't deal with high pitch counts. Something about the muscle mass being in the wrong shape for all the repetitive motion. And someone else said that some people's arms just handle the stress better -- and that in the days before all this surgery -- the pitchers predisposed to having these problems would have been weeded out sooner. I have no idea myself, but it is a damn shame that both Woods and Prior's arms are about to fall off. The general feeling in Chicago is that they both should be taken out behind the barn and shot.

[Dan Gould]

Boy do the yankees look bad 7 straight losses.........Dice K was allright except for that one inning.

I don't understand the way he loses the strike zone so drastically, its very worrisome. But you gotta love how the bats responded and enjoy this while it lasts. I think we've got a good chance to keep it going today vs Karstens, if Wake has a good day. Karstens against Papi with the short porch in right could spell disaster for the Yanks (if last week's game had been played at the Stadium, I think all three of Papi's at-bats against Karstens would have left the yard). They've gotta take it one game at a time, but we definitely should be favored today, and I like the fact that Wang has a 4.91 lifetime ERA against us. If we can do the unthinkable and complete another sweep, I think the shit will hit the fan in the Bronx and Joe Torre will be gone.

I'll say this: its nice to know that the last time the Yanks lost seven in a row in April was 1989 when they finished well under .500 and 14 games behind Toronto.

[Matthew]

Guys, the only thing more enjoyable than a Yankee seven game losing streak is a Yankee AND Red Sox seven game losing streak.

[Tim McG]

as much as i loathe contributing to the non-stop AL east fest, papelbon looks fucking crazy just before he pitches. that guy is awesome. I do wonder though if he will flame out gagne-style or go mental brad lidge style. if not, hes gonna be the real deal.

with that said, the season has been pretty cool thus far. I'm particularly happy about the development of adrian gonzalez, and barry bonds homering like crazy (despite how everyone hates him for using steroids, he really is an exciting player to watch. I had the good fortune of seeing Greg Maddux shut him down at Petco a few weeks back)

I think back in Barry's non-steroid days he was exciting to watch....now he bats a few times a game a few days a week, provides very little excitement on the base paths or in field....not really that exciting (to me).

m~

Non-steroids day...?

I wasn't aware there was any proof to that effect.

Do you really need me to go over the proof?

Fact 1:

Barry was a client of Balco, a criminal organization which provided illegal "designer" steroids to its clients.

Fact 2:

Balco offered its clients two steroid products: "the cream" and "the clear"

Fact 3:

Bonds testified that he received and used two Balco products, one was a clear ointment and the other was a cream.

You may want to debate whether Bonds committed perjury, but no one with a brain can deny that Bonds received and used steroids.

He's an embarassment and a fraud.

Hm.

Let's examine these "facts":

Fact 1: Guilt by association. There is not now nor has there ever been any hard evidence linking Bonds to any steroids allegedly given out to ballplayer by that firm. Ex-girlfriends with a jilted ax to grind do not suffice.

Fact 2: Because something is offered does not in any way, shape or form equal their use by anyone. If it were, then people convicted of drunk driving could sue liquor stores for making the booze available.

Fact 3: The "clear" and the "cream" were both legal at the time of their use and he has already said as much. Neither are injectable steroids which is the allegation against him.

Perjury? How can Bonds lie about something nobody has ever proven he used?

On that basis, we can use the "evidence" to convict passersby who drove or walked past the BALCO offices or jail the janitor and office secretary.

Thank God our court system asks for more than this to convict someone.

Yike!

Edited April 28, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

as much as i loathe contributing to the non-stop AL east fest, papelbon looks fucking crazy just before he pitches. that guy is awesome. I do wonder though if he will flame out gagne-style or go mental brad lidge style. if not, hes gonna be the real deal.

with that said, the season has been pretty cool thus far. I'm particularly happy about the development of adrian gonzalez, and barry bonds homering like crazy (despite how everyone hates him for using steroids, he really is an exciting player to watch. I had the good fortune of seeing Greg Maddux shut him down at Petco a few weeks back)

I think back in Barry's non-steroid days he was exciting to watch....now he bats a few times a game a few days a week, provides very little excitement on the base paths or in field....not really that exciting (to me).

m~

Non-steroids day...?

I wasn't aware there was any proof to that effect.

Do you really need me to go over the proof?

Fact 1:

Barry was a client of Balco, a criminal organization which provided illegal "designer" steroids to its clients.

Fact 2:

Balco offered its clients two steroid products: "the cream" and "the clear"

Fact 3:

Bonds testified that he received and used two Balco products, one was a clear ointment and the other was a cream.

You may want to debate whether Bonds committed perjury, but no one with a brain can deny that Bonds received and used steroids.

He's an embarassment and a fraud.

Hm.

Let's examine these "facts":

Fact 1: Guilt by association. There is not now nor has there ever been any hard evidence linking Bonds to any steroids allegedly given out to ballplayer by that firm. Ex-girlfriends with a jilted ax to grind do not suffice.

Fact 2: Because something is offered does not in any way, shape or form equal their use by anyone. If it were, then people convicted of drunk driving could sue liquor stores for making the booze available.

Fact 3: The "clear" and the "cream" were both legal at the time of their use and he has already said as much. Neither are injectable steroids which is the allegation against him.

Perjury? How can Bonds lie about something nobody has ever proven he used?

On that basis, we can use the "evidence" to convict passersby who drove or walked past the BALCO offices or jail the janitor and office secretary.

Thank God our court system asks for more than this to convict someone.

Yike!

You're a pathetic joke.

Fact 1: Guilt by association. There is not now nor has there ever been any hard evidence linking Bonds to any steroids allegedly given out to ballplayer by that firm. Ex-girlfriends with a jilted ax to grind do not suffice.

Let's see ... Giambi was impressed by Bond's physique and endurance and ability to perform late in the normal athletic cycle. He approached Bonds who directed him to his personal trainer. The personal trainer informed him that he has extra special steroids to sell him. Giambi, being familiar with steroids already, took one look at the man's main client and said "sign me up." Giambi testified that he knowingly bought and used these designer steroids.

KNOWINGLY BOUGHT AND USED THEM.

By your defense, we are to believe that Bonds' trainer gave another client steroids while refusing to give his "close friend" any of the good stuff. We are to believe that BALCO gave steroids to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF ITS CLIENTS except Bonds, as has been demonstrated in countless court proceedings.

YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.

Fact 2: Because something is offered does not in any way, shape or form equal their use by anyone. If it were, then people convicted of drunk driving could sue liquor stores for making the booze available.

BONDS TESTIFIED HE USED A CLEAR SUBSTAND AND A CREAM SUBSTANCE GIVEN TO HIM BY BALCO. BALCO OFFERED STEROIDS IN CLEAR AND CREAM FORM.

Because Bonds says it was "an arthritis balm" and "flaxseed oil" we are supposed to believe him and not all common sense and logic?

YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.

Fact 3: The "clear" and the "cream" were both legal at the time of their use and he has already said as much. Neither are injectable steroids which is the allegation against him.

The Clear and The Cream were steroids, which are illegal to sell, use or possess without governmental approval.

I HAVE NO F-ING CLUE WHERE YOU HAVE COME UP WITH SOME DISTINCTION BETWEEN INJECTABLE STEROIDS AND THE TYPE THAT BONDS USED. THERE IS NONE IN LAW, THERE IS NONE IN THE DECLARATION MADE BY FAY VINCENT THAT STEROIDS SHALL NOT BE USED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLAYER'S UNION.

YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.

Perjury? How can Bonds lie about something nobody has ever proven he used?

I WILL GUARANTEE TO YOU THAT THE GRAND JURY HAS COPIOUS PROOF THAT BONDS USED STEROIDS AND HAS PROBABLY, AS A MATTER OF LAW, ALREADY CONCLUDED THAT HE DID. THE PROOF THAT HE LIED ABOUT IT IS ALL OVER THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS TESTIMONY. JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT A SLAM DUNK CASE BY GETTING ANDERSON TO TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY ABOUT WHAT BONDS KNEW DOES NOT MEAN HE HAS NOT COMMITTED PERJURY.

YOU ARE PATHETICALLY DELUSIONAL.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Dan Gould

[Dan Gould]

I remember how much of a problem you had recognizing perjury in President Clinton, Tim, so its no suprise you are having a problem recognizing it in your sad pathetic hero, Bonds. But let me repeat my offer:

I'll make you a deal:

You send me your address, I will send you, at my cost, a copy of "Game of Shadows".

You promise to read it, cover to cover.

You then come back to this thread and either post, in detail, an argument that refutes the conclusion that Bonds used a wide variety of performance enhancing drugs, or else you shut up about the "gift" and denying what everyone with a brain now knows.

Deal? PM me if you have the guts to read the truth about your pathetic hero.

[Tim McG]

Whoa big fella.

Your opinion does not equal incontrovertable fact, Dan, any more than mine does. Besides, I have always maintained that if Bonds did use steroids, I'd be the first to admit it. But it's going to take a lot more than comparing muscle mass to a skinny rookie in a Pirates uniform.

You want to disagree, that's fine...but because you see limited and hearsay evidence as fact is a clear indication we need to define terms. Hearsay is not evidence. Guilt by association is not evidence. A new hat size is not evidence. It is supposition. That and 50 cents gets you the morning paper.

If you were a lawyer and brought this "evidence" to a judge for prosecution, he'd probably ask for your credentials and recommend a refresher course on Facts in Evidence. There isn't even enough here to convict him of post nasal drip.

As to Clinton, well...you have previously shown to me that your biased veiws on that point are narrow, narrower, narrowest so I think we leave that one alone.

Until there is incontrovertable evidence, IMHO, there is no case here. Game of Shadows is a shameless kiss-and-tell book without a shread of hard evidence. Ex-girlfriends and "he said she said" isn't evidence either, Dan. BTW, have you forgotten the legal trouble those guys encountered for printing Grand Jury testimony, hm...? Slipshod reporting shored up with illegally obtained GJ tesimony is not something which inspires trust, my misguided friend.

Peace to you.

Edited April 28, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Meanwhile, it was sure fun to watch the Giants demolish the [hated] dodgers this past week

Sweep!!!

[Aggie87]

If it's true Bonds' shoe size has gone from 10 1/2 to 13 as an adult, how do you explain that? I don't know anyone who's feet suddenly go up 5 sizes.

[Tim McG]

If it's true Bonds' shoe size has gone from 10 1/2 to 13 as an adult, how do you explain that? I don't know anyone who's feet suddenly go up 5 sizes.

My shoe size has increased fom 10 1/2 to 12 and in my adult years....everybody's foot grows in adulthood. Stops at age 35 or so.

My hat size has increased over the last 15-20 years from 7 1/2 to 7 5/8, too.

I weigh more than I did 20 years ago, as well.

Maybe it's the Flonaise I use [it has a mild steroid]...allergies, you see.

BTW....I'm 52.

Edited April 28, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Whoa big fella.

Your opinion does not equal incontrovertable fact, Dan, any more than mine does. But it's going to take a lot more than comparing muscle mass to a skinny rookie in a Pirates uniform.

You want to disagree, that's fine...but because you see limited and hearsay evidence as fact is a clear indication we need to define terms. Hearsay is not evidence. Guilt by association is not evidence. A new hat size is not evidence. It is supposition. That and 50 cents gets you the morning paper.

Until there is incontrovertable evidence, IMHO, there is no case here. Game of Shadows is a shameless kiss-and-tell book without a shread of hard evidence. Ex-girlfriends and "he said she said" isn't evidence either, Dan. BTW, have you forgotten the legal trouble those guys encountered for printing Grand Jury testimony, hm...? Slipshod reporting shored up with illegally obtained GJ tesimony is not something which inspires trust, my misguided friend.

That's a joke, right? Doping schedules with the initials of all of his other clients, PLUS "BB" is "hearsay"?

GRAND JURY TESTIMONY is "hearsay"?

And how dare you use the so-called "illegally obtained" Grand Jury testimony. IT IS LEGITIMATE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. How it was obtained has nothing to do with its accuracy. HELL, the chief co-conspirator is the one who gave it to them! but the simple fact is that the book isn't close to "slipshod reporting" - it is recognized by everyone else as so solidly sourced as to utterly destroy the credibility of Bonds and his rapidly decreasing corp of defenders.

The fact that you remain one is staggering.

Besides, I have always maintained that if Bonds did use steroids, I'd be the first to admit it.

Really? Seriously? Then how come overwhelming evidence that has led dozens of national sportswriters and millions of baseball fans to conclude that he used steroids, and you aren't admitting it?

How come?

Its painfully obvious you choose not to see that which you do not wish to.

I'd tell you I admire you for standing by your man but since it defies all standards of intelligence ...